Personal tools

Views

Improving library documentation

From HaskellWiki

If you find standard library documentation lacking in any way, please
log it here. At the minimum record what library/module/function isn't
properly documented. Please also suggest how to improve the
documentation, in terms of examples, explanations and so on.

Contents

1 General Haddock

I wish haddock generated a link to the parent module when it creates the page for a given module. I may implement this myself, but I wanted to make sure this wishlist item was recorded somewhere :) Dagit 08:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

2 base

package base
Data.Array.IO and Data.Array.MArray
descriptions

An example would be usefull. Arrays can be very difficult when you see
them the very first time ever with the assumption that you want to try
them right now and that Haskell is a relatively new to you. Maybe something
like this could be added into the descriptions of the array-modules.

4 unix

5 QuickCheck

6 STM

TMVar, TChan: While mostly intuitive, the functions could use some comments to simplify reference.
Imix 10:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

7 Control.Applicative, Data.Traversable, Data.Foldable

Some examples of how these modules can be used would be extremely helpful. It's hard for me to extract examples from the McBride and Paterson paper, because of the notation and because the examples are mixed in with the axioms and proofs.

(This comment really applies to any module where the description contains a link to a PDF of an academic paper and no examples.)

The problem is that those classes do not make sense without axioms, a set of axioms defines the meaning. What do you mean by an inappropriate notation? Personally I feel that “→” is more readable than “->” and “∘” than “.”. --Beroal 05:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)